28 U.S.C. § 1367

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Knight v. MTA-New York City Transit Authority · filed 2021-06-15(c)(3)

Here, concerns about judicial economy, convenience, and fairness are minimal because this case is still at an early stage of pre-trial litigation, discovery has not yet commenced, and the Amended Complaint was just filed on April 21, 2020. As I have dismissed Plaintiff's sole federal claim, the balance of factors favor dismissal of Plaintiffs remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, taking account of the statutory factors and judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Doyle v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC · filed 2021-06-16(c)

When a court grants a motion to dismiss for failure to state a federal claim, the court generally retains discretion to continue to exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over state-law claims. ... All of the relevant factors, save for one statutory factor, favor declining jurisdiction. This court follows the general rule and declines to exercise continued jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing the decision.

Callender v. Department of the Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Maui · filed 2021-06-16(c)(3)

Here, considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims. The Court dismissed the only claim over which it had original jurisdiction, and although the Court addressed Defendants’ dispositive motions, the case is still in its earliest stages. There are no other factors compelling the Court to deviate from the common practice of declining supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claims remain. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Fraser v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority · filed 2021-06-16(c)

Under the circumstances, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims when judicial economy and avoidance of multiple suits do not justify retaining them.

Thompson 219215 v. Brown · filed 2021-06-22(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

McShane v. Department of Parks and Recreation, City and County of Honolulu · filed 2021-06-23(c)(3)

The Court has considered the appropriate factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 and finds that they weigh in favor of declining jurisdiction over McShane’s remaining state-law breach-of- contract and constitutional claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor dismissal when the case is still in its preliminary stages.

Stidhum v. 161-10 Hillside Auto Ave, LLC · filed 2021-06-25(c)

Plaintiff’s state-law claims are also dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Four factors bear on whether it is appropriate to exercise supplemental jurisdiction: “judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Catzin v. Thank You & Good Luck Corp., 899 F.3d 77, 81 (2d Cir. 2018). These factors counsel in favor of dismissing plaintiff’s state-law claims. This case is still in its preliminary stages.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy may justify retaining the state law claims.

Chandler v. City Of Cincinnati · filed 2021-06-28(c)(3)

It is well-established that when a district court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s state law claims. ... Those interests would not be served by maintaining supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims in this case. The Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims and dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; when discovery has not begun, judicial economy does not overcome the presumption against retaining them, and they may be dismissed without prejudice.

Buckley v. City of Westland · filed 2021-06-29(c)(3)

The Court will therefore now decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. For one, the Court lacks original jurisdiction over the claims. And two, the interests of judicial economy do not override the presumption against retaining the case because the parties have not even begun discovery. See Blakely v. United States, 276 F.3d 853, 863 (6th Cir. 2002). For those two reasons, the Court will dismiss the state law claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Speckman v. Fabrizio · filed 2021-07-06(c)(3)

A district court that has dismissed all federal claims in a case relying on federal question jurisdiction may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any lingering state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). But first, that court must consider “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity” before making the choice to keep or dispose of the case. ... The Court sees no cause to depart from the standard rule.

Section 1367 allows a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claims, based on factors including judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Doss v. Corrections · filed 2021-07-08(c)(3)

Rather, upon Plaintiff’s election to dismiss his federal claims, it was left to this Court’s discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, or whether to instead decline to exercise this jurisdiction and remand this case to state court. ... Considering all of the factors discussed above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is denied; the Court holds, once again, that it will continue jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims.

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the balance of factors, including comity, favors doing so.

Clinton v. Perez · filed 2021-07-09(c)(3)

The balance of factors here weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss any state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity into account.

Pearson v. City of New York City Department of Education · filed 2021-07-09(c)(3)

Although federal district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over non-federal law claims “that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim” once it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” id. § 1367(c)(3). ... Here, the Court has granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss as to all of Pearson’s federal claims. “Because the Court addressed and dismissed these claims early in the litigation, declining jurisdiction over the remaining state and municipal claims would not disserve the principles of judicial economy, convenience, or fairness.” ... For this reason, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Pearson’s state and local claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favoring dismissal when the litigation is at an early stage.

Kiasantana, LLC v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon · filed 2021-07-09(c)(3)

Defendants argue that the Court should decline to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims if the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ federal constitutional claim. The Court agrees. When a lawsuit is in an early stage of litigation, as is the case here, after “all federal law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors to be considered under the pendent jurisdiction doctrine—judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity—will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988). In addition, if the Court has misunderstood Oregon’s common law of real property (or if the Court has correctly understood that law but Plaintiffs seek an opportunity to ask the Oregon Supreme Court to modify that law), Plaintiffs will have a better chance of presenting their arguments to the Oregon Supreme Court if this district court declines supplemental jurisdiction. Thus, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses Plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor retention.

Kovach v. MFA, Incorporated · filed 2021-07-14(c)(3)

Because only state law claims remain, this action may remain in federal court only if the Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over the MHRA claims. ... Because, on balance, the Gibbs factors favor retaining jurisdiction over Plaintiff's MHRA claims, the Court does not reach whether Plaintiff has engaged in “manipulative tactics.” ... The Motion to Remand is denied.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify doing so.

GOK v. POST & SCHELL PC · filed 2021-07-20(c)

But § 1367(c) gives discretion — the Court “may decline” supplemental jurisdiction and, by the statute’s plain language, may instead retain jurisdiction.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims after weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Centene Corporation v. Indivior Inc. · filed 2021-07-22(c)(3)

Considering the balance of factors, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and I will dismiss them without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claim is dropped when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify retaining the state claims.

OWOH v. PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES LLC · filed 2021-08-04(c)(3)

The Court then exercised supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims, per 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (a), when Defendant removed this action. So, under New Rock Asset Partners, L.P., 101 F.3d at 1505, Plaintiff’s filing of an Amended Complaint that dropped his federal claim does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction over his state claims. Thus, the Court may retain jurisdiction over this matter for the best interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties. ... Here, the Court will continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this matter. The Court is very familiar with this case and has already expended the judicial resources to review the pleadings and hold a pre-motion conference. Moreover, the Court finds no reason to suggest that exercising supplemental jurisdiction will inconvenience or prejudice the parties. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand is denied.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims are dismissed before trial; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity may support retaining them when their resolution is absolutely clear.

Rodriguez v. The City of Chicago · filed 2021-08-05(c)(3)

Where, as here, the state law claims are based on the supplemental jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 rather than the diversity jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1332, see [239] at 2, the “sensible presumption [is] that if the federal claims drop out before trial, the district court should relinquish jurisdiction over the state-law claims.” ... The Court cannot conclude that it is “absolutely clear how the pendent claims can be decided.” ... Therefore, the Court will follow the general rule and dismiss the state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy favors deciding claims governed by the same substantive standards.

Maragh v. The Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation · filed 2021-08-05(c)(3)

Despite the general presumption, the Court concludes, in the interest of judicial economy, that it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Maragh’s NYSHRL claims, as it is well established that the substantive standards are the same as the Title VII standards applied above.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, especially when the federal claims end before trial and judicial economy does not favor retaining the state claim.

Johnson v. Opa Campbell LP · filed 2021-08-09(c)(3)

“District courts ‘may’—and often do—‘decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction’ if, as here, they have ‘dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.’” Johnson v. Montpelier One LLC, No. 19-CV-06214-EJD, 2020 WL 3504458, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2020) (citing 28 U.S.C § 1367(c)(3)). ... The court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Harbec v. United States · filed 2021-08-10(c)(3)

Although the court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the court elects to retain jurisdiction over those claims in the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness, especially in light of the court’s experience with this case over the course of the past two years.

When all claims within original jurisdiction have been dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Danam v. Arizona Board of Education · filed 2021-08-10(c)(3)

Economy and convenience do not warrant exercising supplemental jurisdiction here. ... The principles of comity and federalism also weigh against the Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction. ... Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c) gives a district court discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after the federal claims are dismissed, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Ellis v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC · filed 2021-08-13(c)

When federal law claims that serve as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction are dismissed and only state law claims grounded on supplemental jurisdiction remain, a district court has broad discretion to dismiss the state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 173; St. Germain vy. Howard, 556 F.3d 261, 263-64 (Sth Cir. 2009). The Court finds that the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity suggest that this Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of judicial economy and convenience.

Lee Pappas Body Shop, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company · filed 2021-08-13(c)(3)

Federal courts have wide discretion in choosing whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction once all original jurisdiction claims have been dismissed. § 1367(c). ... Based upon the foregoing factors, this Court will retain jurisdiction over the remaining tortious interference claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing that choice.

Mattwaoshshe v. Nextera Energy, Inc. · filed 2021-08-17(c)(3)

But because the court will dismiss all the federal question claims, it must decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ remaining Kansas tort claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). It declines to do so.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and city law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.

Harris v. NYC Human Resources Administration · filed 2021-08-27(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court may “decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if it has dismissed all federal claims.” ... Considering these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harris’s state and city law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Lampe v. Delta Airlines, Inc. · filed 2021-08-31(c)(3)

Considering these factors, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these claims.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with comity and efficiency weighing in that decision.

Oberer Land Developers Ltd v. Sugarcreek Township, Ohio · filed 2021-08-31(c)(3)

Where -- as is the case here -- summary judgment dismissal of a party’s federal law claims is warranted, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Jones v. Papa · filed 2021-09-08(c)(3)

Here, given the absence of any viably pled federal law claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction at this time over any state law claims, including Plaintiff’s purported speedy indictment claim under CPL 180.80, that may be reasonably construed from the complaint. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any potential state-law claims contained in Plaintiff’s complaint and dismisses any such claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Tortorici v. Bus-Tev, LLC · filed 2021-09-14(c)(3)

The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claims; they are dismissed without prejudice. A court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction . . . if the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”

Section 1367(c) leaves district courts discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness justify it.

Talley v. Wetzel · filed 2021-09-27(c)

There is no such rule. As discussed above, our precedent makes clear that district courts have the discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims so long as certain factors justify doing so.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Baron v. Lissade · filed 2021-09-27(c)

Having dismissed plaintiff’s federal claims, I decline to retain jurisdiction over her state claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing that discretion.

Logan v. The City of Schenectady · filed 2021-09-27(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiff’s § 1983 deliberate indifference claim, the Court declines, in its discretion, to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Fincher v. The City of New York · filed 2021-09-29(c)(3)

All factors here weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law-claims, even if Plaintiff had complied with the notice-of-claim provisions.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Bondick v. Lane County · filed 2021-09-29(c)(3)

A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims where it has dismissed all federal claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In doing so, the court should consider values of “economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Acri v. Varian Assocs., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s only federal claim is dismissed and the case is in its earliest stage. As such, the Court finds that declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims promotes judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over nonfederal crossclaims against parties dismissed from the federal claims after considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Della Mura v. Thomas · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

The Court has “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), as to the Individual Defendants, potentially leaving only City Defendants’ non- federal crossclaims for indemnification against the Cross-Defendants as active claims. Considering the necessary factors of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the crossclaim against the Cross-Defendants.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Johnson v. DiVittorio · filed 2021-10-12(c)(3)

The Court similarly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act ... claim in this case because “it would not further the interest of judicial economy, convenience, ... fairness and comity.”

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims, taking account of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Scratch Golf LLC v. Beaufort County · filed 2021-10-12(c)(3)

Having carefully considered these factors, and in light of the federal question claims being dismissed, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the only federal claim, especially when little judicial economy would be lost.

Doe v. Google LLC · filed 2021-10-19(c)(3)

The Court finds that the facts do not favor the Court exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this case. The Court has only preliminarily considered the merits of Plaintiffs’ state law claims in considering Plaintiffs’ application for a temporary restraining order, ECF No. 27, so there is little judicial economy that would be hindered by dismissing these claims. Plaintiffs’ state law claims are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, based on comity, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness.

Public Water Supply District No. 1 of Greene County, MO v. City of Springfield, MO · filed 2021-10-22(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), once a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... On balance, the Court finds that while its continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction would be permissible, it declines to do so here.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity can favor doing so when federal claims are dismissed early.

Blumenkron v. Multnomah County · filed 2021-10-25(c)(3)

However, the Court has discretionary authority to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... As the only remaining claim after dismissing all federal claims would require this Court to determine the validity of Oregon’s complex land use planning structure under the Oregon state constitution, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Centeno v. City of Carlsbad · filed 2021-10-26(c)(3)

The Court must next decide whether it should exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). It is well settled that federal courts have discretion to retain jurisdiction over state law claims even after the federal question basis for removal jurisdiction is dismissed. ... Upon due consideration of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court finds on balance it is more appropriate to retain jurisdiction. It will therefore exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, with judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity informing that choice.

Whitaker v. Mind Games, LLC · filed 2021-10-27(c)(3)

A district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction” if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). ... Upon balancing the Gibbs factors, it is not in the interest of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience and fairness favor resolving them in federal court.

REAL v. WETZEL · filed 2021-10-27(c)(3)

Finally, with the dismissal of Real’s federal claims, the Court must decide whether to decline supplemental jurisdiction or to address his state law claims on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Judicial economy, convenience and fairness to the parties weigh against requiring them to be litigated in state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness support retention.

Pinedo v. USA · filed 2021-11-02(c)

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if any of the following four circumstances exists: (1) the claim raises a novel or complex issue of state law; (2) the state law claim substantially predominates over the federal claim; (3) the court has dismissed all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction; or (4) “exceptional circumstances” providing “compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Because the court has dismissed the Bivens action, over which it had original jurisdiction, only state law claims remain. Still, although the doctrine of supplemental jurisdiction is “a doctrine of discretion, not of plaintiff’s right,” United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726 (1966), exercising supplemental jurisdiction is appropriate here.

After dismissing all federal claims, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims based on judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.

Winston v. Van Osdol, P.C. · filed 2021-11-02(c)(3)

In sum, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims based on considerations of judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Kane v. Mount Pleasant Central School District · filed 2021-11-03(c)(3)

Having determined that all of the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s remaining state law causes of action. See id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after it has dismissed all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Nelson v. Croymans · filed 2021-11-16(c)(3)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim if the district court has dismissed all federal claims. ... I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim against defendant Weinkauf.

After all federal claims are dismissed, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after considering convenience, fairness, federal policy, comity, and judicial economy.

Wideman v. Sink, Sr. · filed 2021-11-19(c)(3)

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff cannot sustain any federal causes of action. The undersigned therefore recommends the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. ... The comity factor and considerations of judicial economy weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. ... For these reasons, the Court should decline to retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law causes of action.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Ploof v. Arizona, State of · filed 2021-12-09(c)(3)

Absent Plaintiff's claims presenting questions of federal law, which the Court ... dismisses for the reasons outlined above, and considering the factors articulated by the ... Ninth Circuit, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction here.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

LG 52 Doe v. Town of Poughkeepsie · filed 2021-12-14(c)(3)

The “traditional ‘values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity’” weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where all federal law claims are eliminated before trial. Kolari v. New York-Presbyterian Hosp., 455 F.3d 118, 122 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988)). Having determined that all of the claims over which this Court has original jurisdiction should be dismissed, and having considered the factors set forth in Cohill, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any of Plaintiff’s remaining state law causes of action. See id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed, considering judicial economy and the inconvenience of refiling.

Langer v. Music City Hotel LP · filed 2021-12-15(c)(3)

As described above, the court does not have jurisdiction over the ADA claim because it is now moot. Plaintiff has not shown that this is other than the “usual case.” The court has not considered the merits of the Unruh Act claim, and there is no interest in judicial economy in retaining the case. Plaintiff fails to articulate any significant inconvenience that he would face in refiling in state court. The court therefore declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Unruh Act claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on judicial economy and the need to avoid needless state-law decisions.

Alger 376096 v. Snyder · filed 2021-12-15(c)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Daniel v. City of New York · filed 2021-12-16(c)(3)

For these reasons, the Court, having resolved the SAC’s federal law claims and found them not viable, does not find any circumstances counseling in favor of the Court’s exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Daniel’s remaining claims. The Court accordingly declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the SAC’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, and dismisses these without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Talbert v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania · filed 2022-04-22(c)(3)

When a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, as is the case in the above-captioned action, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3). The Court’s decision regarding the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is one that should be based on “the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” See Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). Ordinarily, when all federal claims have been dismissed and only state law claims remain, the balance of these factors indicates that the remaining claims properly belong in state court. See id. In the absence of a viable federal claim and finding nothing to distinguish this matter from the ordinary case, the Court finds that the balance of factors in this case “point[s] toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.” See id. at 350 n.7. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking account of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Smith v. Ellis · filed 2022-04-25(c)(3)

With the dismissal of the remaining federal claims—which constitutes all the claims over which this Court had original jurisdiction—in Mr. Smith’s Complaint against the remaining defendants by this Order, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction of any timely and viable state law claims Mr. Smith may have asserted, under the principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Morrison v. District of Columbia · filed 2022-04-25(c)(3)

But if the Court “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction,” it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state- law claims. Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... With the dismissal of Morrison’s federal claims, no claim remains over which the Court has original jurisdiction. The Court finds that the factors listed above weigh against the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Thus, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will dismiss those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy favors resolving the remaining claims.

Heron v. Medrite Testing, L.L.C. · filed 2022-04-25(c)(3)

Because Plaintiff’s federal claim under Title VII fails, this court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. ... I will, therefore, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the various local law claims – if only to dismiss them.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims against that defendant when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weigh against retaining them.

VUYANICH v. SMITHTON BOROUGH · filed 2022-04-25(c)(3)

Since the Court has dismissed all of the federal law claims against Thompson’s Garage and the remaining claims are state law claims, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties weigh against the Court retaining supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissing the federal claims, with comity, fairness, convenience, and judicial economy informing that choice.

Reale v. Google LLC · filed 2022-04-26(c)(3)

With the dismissal of the federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The case is at an early stage, and comity, fairness, convenience, and judicial economy concerns weigh heavily against keeping this case in federal court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims, based on considerations including judicial economy and avoiding needless decisions of state law.

George 827005 v. Kenison · filed 2022-04-26(c)(3)

In determining whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction, “[a] district court should consider the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding state law issues.” Landefeld, 994 F.2d at 1182; see also Moon, 465 F.3d at 728 (“Residual jurisdiction should be exercised only in cases where the interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of litigation outweigh our concern over needlessly deciding state law issues.” (internal quotations omitted)). Dismissal, however, remains “purely discretionary.” Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)); Orton v. Johnny’s Lunch Franchise, LLC, 668 F.3d 843, 850 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed the federal claim to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

A-World Trade, Inc. v. Apmex, Inc. · filed 2022-04-28(c)(3)

Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss remaining state law claims after disposing of all federal claims when judicial economy and the likely duplication of effort do not favor retaining them.

Wilson v. Level One HVAC Services, Inc. · filed 2022-04-29(c)(3)

In the present case, the Court concludes that the balance of considerations favors dismissal. While this action has been ongoing for just over one year, “the parties [have] not exerted substantial time or effort in briefing the merits of the state law causes of action.” Packard v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Columbus Inc., 423 F. App’x 580, 585 (6th Cir. 2011). Further, plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any “overwhelming interests in judicial economy” that warrant the Court’s continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over her state claims, Aschinger v. Columbus Showcase Co., 934 F.2d 1402, 1412 (6th Cir. 1991), “nor any undue amount of wasted or duplicative effort that will result from having to re-file . . . in state court.” DePiero v. City of Macedonia, 180 F.3d 770,790 (6th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). For these reasons, the Court shall dismiss Counts III and IV pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after the federal claim is dismissed when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Micro Focus (US) Inc. v. Insurance Services Office Inc. · filed 2022-05-12(c)(3)

In this case, the factors of “judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties” weigh in favor of continuing to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, a district court must decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness affirmatively justifies retaining them.

CIRINO v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA · filed 2022-05-17(c)(3)

District courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Indeed, when the claims over which it has original jurisdiction are dismissed before trial, the court “must decline to decide the pendent state claims unless considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties provide an affirmative justification for doing so.” Hedges v. Musco, 204 F.3d 109, 123 (3d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). Here, they do not.

Section 1367(c)(3) gives a district court discretion to retain related state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Phillips v. Mabus · filed 2022-05-19(c)(3)

Section 1367(c)(3) permits district courts to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when they have already dismissed the claims that supported original jurisdiction. ... The Court finds, however, that this litigation does not present “the usual case” and that the balance weighs in favor of exercising supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Jaeckels v. Golden Nugget, LLC · filed 2022-05-27(c)(3)

In sum, the Court has dismissed the only claims over which it had original jurisdiction and finds that, on balance, the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction.

After all federal claims are dismissed before trial, § 1367 permits the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Lyons v. York County Board of Commissioners · filed 2022-05-27(c)(3)

The Court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over them, but is not required to do so. ... In exercising its discretion, the Court must consider factors such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... There is nothing particularly distinguishing about the defendant's state-law counterclaims. As such, the defendant's counterclaims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction, weighing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Smith v. Doe · filed 2022-05-27(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims - - the only federal cause of action - - the Court finds that concerns for judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity weigh against retaining supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims, including negligence. Accordingly, the undersigned declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claim and such claims are therefore dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, subject to its discretion and the interests of judicial economy and comity.

Oberer Land Developers Ltd. v. Sugarcreek Twp., Ohio · filed 2022-06-01(c)(3)

The district court was well within its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction and leave it to Ohio courts to pass judgement on this local land dispute.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with comity favoring state resolution of issues material only to those claims.

McNabb v. Lobb · filed 2022-06-02(c)(3)

The Court declines to retain supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law tort claims. Proceedings in this case are advanced. See doc. 27 (setting discovery and dispositive motion deadlines that have passed). The Court, though, has dismissed all federal claims without reaching a key factual issue underlying the remaining state law claims: did Defendant Lobb have probable cause to charge Plaintiff with embezzlement and larceny. Comity dictates that a state court should resolve whether a genuine issue of material fact exists to issues that are material only to state law claims when only state law claims remain.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, upon balancing judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Costello v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA · filed 2022-06-03(c)(3)

The balance of factors here weighs in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, as the sole claims conferring jurisdiction on this Court will be dismissed, as discussed above.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, taking comity and other practical factors into account.

Cirencione v. County of Ontario · filed 2022-06-08(c)(3)

Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and the remaining state-law claims must be remanded to the New York Supreme Court, Ontario County for resolution.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that has dismissed the federal claims against defendants to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims after considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Eslick v. State of Washington · filed 2022-06-09(c)(3)

Having dismissed the federal claims asserted against City Defendants, and considering the values of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity, the Court declines to exercise supplement jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims asserted against the City of Moses Lake and Officers Perez and Ruffin.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims before trial, considering judicial economy and the avoidance of needless state-law decisions.

Turner 171187 v. Michigan Department of Corrections · filed 2022-06-09(c)

Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law claims. ... Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Law v. Labat · filed 2022-06-10(c)(3)

The Court finds the interests of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness weigh against declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, with judicial economy and comity weighing in that decision.

Stone v. Fishhawk Anderson Inc · filed 2022-06-14(c)(3)

In light of the dismissal of the Title VII claims, judicial economy and comity considerations weigh strongly against exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; the court may consider judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Lightfoot v. Koonz, McKenney, Johnson & Depaolis LLP · filed 2022-06-16(c)(3)

By the same token, they “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over [such] claim[s] . . . if . . .the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction[.]” Id. § 1367(c)(3). ... These factors weigh against retention here. The Court is dismissing both federal claims against Defendant, this case has not progressed in federal court past this Motion to Dismiss, and the Court has developed no familiarity with the additional issues presented.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Johnson v. Barbour County Board of Education · filed 2022-06-21(c)(3)

Before dismissing the remaining state-law claims, the Court must consider the factors of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. ... Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing federal claims when economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh against retaining them.

Mecca v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company · filed 2022-06-21(c)(3)

Here, having dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims, the Court finds the factors of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity do not support the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state law claim after dismissing the federal claims, considering judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

England v. Marshall County Sheriff · filed 2022-06-22(c)(3)

As the court has concluded the second amended complaint fails to state a claim that QCC, MCS, or the sheriff in his personal capacity violated Mr. England’s constitutional rights, the court is left only with supplemental jurisdiction. When faced with only supplemental jurisdiction, the court considers various factors, such as judicial economy, convenience, and fairness and comity, when deciding whether to retain jurisdiction. See Wright v. Associated Ins. Companies Inc., 29 F.3d 1244, 1251 (7th Cir. 1994). In weighing these factors here, nothing compels the court to retain jurisdiction, particularly at this early stage. Accordingly, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this remaining claim.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, considering fairness, comity, and judicial economy.

Boyd v. Nephron Pharmaceuticals Corporation · filed 2022-06-27(c)(3)

The Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a plaintiff's state law claims if it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367. ... Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Boyd’s SCPWA state claim and remand it to the Lexington County Court of Common Pleas for adjudication there.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no cognizable federal claim remains.

Williams v. The People of the State of California · filed 2022-07-27(c)(3)

As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, the Court declines to screen Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Erker v. Schmeeckle · filed 2022-07-27(c)(3)

The Court found above that Plaintiff has failed to state any claim under § 1983 and that, therefore, all of his federal claims must be dismissed. Therefore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims after dismissing the claim that supplied original jurisdiction, particularly when dismissal occurs early in the case.

Tener v. Mercy Health Services-Iowa, Corp · filed 2022-07-27(c)(3)

The Court declines, however, to exercise supplemental jurisdiction following the dismissal of Count Two. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because of the early stage at which the claim establishing this Court’s original jurisdiction is dismissed, a state court can more appropriately and more effectively resolve the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and local claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Craven v. City of New York · filed 2022-07-27(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), if the Court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise jurisdiction over any non-federal claims over which it could have exercised supplemental jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction in the instant action is based on federal question jurisdiction rooted in claims brought under the ADEA and OWBPA. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Because no federal claim remains that is subject to a merits determination by this Court, it would be inappropriate to adjudicate Plaintiff’s state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Smith v. Rhea County, Tennesee · filed 2022-07-27(c)(3)

The third rationale of § 1367(c) applies here because the Court will dismiss all of the claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

McArthur v. Nino's Market · filed 2022-07-28(c)(3)

Third, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over McArthur’s remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Astra Media Grp., LLC v. Clear Channel Taxi Media, LLC, 414 F. App’x 334, 337 (2d Cir. 2011) (advising that “where all the federal claims have been dismissed at a relatively early stage, the district court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over pendent state-law claims”).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when no federal claims remain.

McArthur v. C-Town Super Market · filed 2022-07-28(c)(3)

Third, because there are no federal law claims remaining and there is no diversity jurisdiction based on the citizenship of the parties, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over McArthur’s claims arising under state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims after disposing of all federal claims before trial.

Jones v. Georgia Ports Authority · filed 2022-07-28(c)(3)

Therefore, the factors contained in Section 1367(c) favor remand, and the Court exercises its discretion to remand the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Holland v. Doddamani · filed 2022-07-28(c)(3)

Given the conclusory nature of the pleadings, and the fact that no other federal claims will survive,1 the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Holland’s state tort claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all claims within its original jurisdiction have been dismissed.

Petty v. Bono · filed 2022-07-28(c)(3)

Having found that all of Plaintiff’s federal claims are subject to dismissal, I recommend that, to the extent that Plaintiff has asserted any state law claims (for example, pursuant to N.Y. Real Prop. Tax Law §§ 300, 304), the Court decline to exercise jurisdiction over those claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Doe v. Archdiocese of St. Louis · filed 2022-07-29(c)(3)

Where, as here, the Court has dismissed the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, this Court may, in its discretion, decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Id. § 1367(c)(3); Glorvigen v. Cirrus Design Corp., 581 F.3d 737, 743 (8th Cir. 2008). ... Here, the factors weigh in favor of declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

When all original-jurisdiction claims are dismissed before trial, a court generally declines supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state claims unless judicial economy, convenience, or fairness justifies retaining them.

CRAWLEY v. CBS CORPORATION · filed 2022-07-29(c)(3)

As the Court is granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the other claims asserted in the Amended Complaint, and because considerations of judicial economy do not provide a justification for exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claim nor are there extraordinary circumstances present here that otherwise warrant the exercise of federal jurisdiction, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count V.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial; courts normally exercise that discretion.

Neeley v. Arizona, State of · filed 2022-07-27(c)(3)

These state law causes of action fall under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, which courts normally decline to exercise when the federal claims are dismissed before trial. ... The Court finds it appropriate to decline jurisdiction over the remaining claims, particularly because a focus of the arguments made in the pending summary judgment motions concern the state’s immunity statute.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims when its only federal claim is moot.

Langer v. Ralphs Grocery Company · filed 2022-07-28(c)(3)

Now that Plaintiff's ADA claim is moot, the Court need not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state law claim under the Unruh Act.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no federal claims remain.

McArthur v. Nur Market · filed 2022-07-28(c)(3)

Third, because there are no federal law claims remaining and there is no diversity jurisdiction based on the citizenship of the parties, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over McArthur’s other claims, liberally construed, arising under state law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when the federal claims are subject to dismissal.

White (ID 76983) v. Schmidt · filed 2022-07-28(c)(3)

This Court is not obliged to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims, even if valid, given that Plaintiff's federal constitutional claims are subject to dismissal.

Section 1367 permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Grant v. Saucedo · filed 2022-07-19(c)(3)

Though a federal court can hear pendent state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court may decline to exercise such supplemental jurisdiction if the Court has dismissed all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction. See Rhyne v. Henderson County, 973 F.2d 386, 395 (Sth Cir. 1992). Because the defendants named in this lawsuit are not amenable to suit under section 1983, the Court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction over any state law claims raised by plaintiff, and the claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after dismissal of the claim within its original jurisdiction when judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor remand.

Washington State Nurses Association v. MultiCare Health Systems · filed 2022-07-19(c)(3)

The factors weigh in favor of declining supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court remands the Unions’ claim to the King County Superior Court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

KENNETT TRUCK STOP, INC. v. WEISS · filed 2022-07-19(c)(3)

Having dismissed (at least for now) all of the federal claims, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses the claims within its original jurisdiction.

Robl v. Pennsylvania State Police · filed 2022-07-19(c)(3)

Here, we will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s claims, given that his federal agency claims previously failed as a matter of law.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Collins v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC · filed 2022-07-20(c)(3)

After review, the Court employs its discretion and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Collins’s remaining state law claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Massey v. Uintah Transportation Special Service District · filed 2022-07-21(c)(3)

The Tenth Circuit has explained that “[w]hen all federal claims have been dismissed, the court may, and usually should, decline to exercise [supplemental] jurisdiction over any remaining state claims.” Crane v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 15 F.4th 1296, 1314 (10th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Because Mr. Massey’s only federal claims have been dismissed, the court will follow the Tenth Circuit’s guidance and dismiss Mr. Massey’s state-law claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing without prejudice. See Reyes v. N.A.R., Inc., 546 F. Supp. 3d 1031, 1042 (D. Utah 2021).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim after all federal claims have been dismissed.

US ex rel. Haile Nicholson v. Medcom Carolinas, Inc. · filed 2022-07-21(c)(3)

Because the state-law claim was the only thing left after the dismissal of all the federal-law claims, the district court had the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over that claim.

Section 1367 permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when no cognizable federal claim remains.

Williams v. Messa · filed 2022-07-21(c)(3)

As Plaintiff has not stated a cognizable claim for relief under federal law, the Court will recommend declining supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismissing those claims without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original federal question jurisdiction, including at an early screening stage.

BANKS v. GRISOM · filed 2022-07-21(c)(3)

When a court dismisses all claims over which it had original federal question jurisdiction, it has the discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). As Plaintiff's federal claims have been dismissed at this early screening stage for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, this Court will exercise its discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction over any related state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after it has dismissed all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Summit v. Equinox Holdings, Inc. · filed 2022-07-21(c)(3)

Because those claims are before the Court solely under its supplemental jurisdiction—and the Court has granted summary judgment to Equinox on Summit’s federal clatm—the Court declines to reach the merits of the NYCHRL claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Whitaker v. TJ Technology LLC · filed 2022-07-22(c)(3)

Because I have dismissed all claims over which I have original jurisdiction, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claim when judicial economy, convenience, and fairness favor retention.

Wilson v. Pan Norcal, LLC · filed 2022-07-25(c)(3)

Despite Wilson’s lack of standing to bring a federal claim, the court exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction over the rest of the action. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim where (1) the claim “raises a novel or complex” state law issue, (2) “the claim substantially predominates over” the original jurisdiction claims, (3) the court has dismissed all original jurisdiction claims, or (4) “in exceptional circumstances, there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims when the federal claims are dismissed before trial.

Neeley v. Arizona, State of · filed 2022-07-26(c)(3)

These state law causes of action fall under the Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, which courts normally decline to exercise when the federal claims are dismissed before trial. ... Here, the Court will decline to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, and it will dismiss the entire SAC.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims, weighing judicial economy and the need to avoid deciding state-law issues.

Lleras-Rodriguez 38558-018 v. GEO Group, Inc., The · filed 2022-07-26(c)(3)

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state-law claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim after it disposes of every claim within its original jurisdiction.

Drake v. Montgomery County, Tennessee · filed 2022-07-26(c)(3)

The basis for jurisdiction in this case is federal-question jurisdiction, and because the Court is granting summary judgment sua sponte on Plaintiff’s federal claim, the Court will no longer have original jurisdiction over any claims upon which the Court’s (supplemental) jurisdiction over the state-law claim was based. For that reason, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction henceforward over Plaintiff’s state-law claim, and it will be dismissed without prejudice.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

Hunter v. Henry · filed 2022-07-26(c)(3)

Having dismissed Plaintiffs federal claims, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction to hear any state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state and municipal law claims when it dismisses the federal claim for lack of standing.

Mendez v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC · filed 2022-07-19(c)(3)

Because the Court is dismissing Plaintiff’s ADA claim for lack of standing, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and municipal law claims included in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

LITTLE v. OUTLAW · filed 2022-07-19(c)

To the extent Little seeks to assert state law claims, the Court, having dismissed his federal claims, will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over any state law claims.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims when all federal law claims are subject to dismissal.

Anderson v. President & CEO of Walmart Inc. · filed 2022-07-20(c)

Because all of Anderson’s federal law claims are subject to dismissal, the Court recommends declining an exercise of jurisdiction over his state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction.

Sentementes v. Lamont · filed 2022-07-20(c)(3)

As the Court has granted summary judgment on the only federal claim against the defendants, the only remaining claims against the defendants and, indeed, in this case are state law claims. Thus, condition (3) of Section 1367(c) applies. Further, no trial date has been set in this case. Accordingly, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims against the defendants and against all other defendants in this case.

Section 1367(c)(3) allows a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim related to a dismissed federal claim.

Rios v. Burrell · filed 2022-07-25(c)(3)

That said, the Court may appropriately decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim when the Court dismisses claims over which it has original jurisdiction. City of Chicago v. Int’l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 164-65 (1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). In that vein, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim related to the delay in dental treatment from July 6, 2018 to August 22, 2019.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing the federal claims.

EVANS v. PRESIDENT OF THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL · filed 2022-07-25(c)

However, the Court, having dismissed his federal claims, will not exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) over his state law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the claims supporting original jurisdiction, including when changed circumstances make remand appropriate after an earlier decision to retain state law claims.

Venoco LLC v. Plains Pipeline LP · filed 2022-07-26(c)(3)

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the claims conferring original jurisdiction have been dismissed. But before declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, district courts must consider the Gibbs factors of (i) comity, (ii) fairness, (iii) convenience, and (iv) judicial economy. See Acri, 114 F.3d at 1001. ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Venoco’s remaining state law claims and GRANTS Venoco’s motion to remand.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after resolving the federal claims when discovery is complete and requiring the parties to start over in state court would be unfair.

Reed v. Kariko · filed 2022-07-22(c)

Finally, for a similar reason, the Court DECLINES to adopt the R&R’s recommendation that the Court dismiss without prejudice Reed’s state law medical negligence claims. Reed correctly argues that discovery is complete, and that it would be unfair to the parties and to the state court to force them to start over again in a new jurisdiction.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims, guided by judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.

Ezeadiugwu v. PA Department of Labor/Industry · filed 2022-07-22(c)(3)

In the absence of original jurisdiction, we decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims that might be construed from the pro se complaint.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand remaining state law claims after the federal claim has been dismissed.

Zuniga v. Safeway, Inc. · filed 2021-01-07(c)(3)

Even if the original complaint stating a federal OSHA claim provided a proper basis for removal, that claim has been dismissed and the remaining claims are all brought under state law. Stated otherwise, unless the remaining state law claims in the FAC establish a basis for federal question jurisdiction, the Court has discretion to remand those state law claims, over which it would have only supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1367(c)(3).

When the federal claim is dismissed, § 1367(c)(3) leaves the court discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims or remand a removed case.

Wagner v. Abbott · filed 2021-05-04(c)(3)

Instead, it is within the Court’s discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims or to remand the case to state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand a supplemental state law claim after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Synergy Project Mgmt., Inc. v. City & County of San Francisco · filed 2021-06-07(c)(3)

We leave it to the district court’s discretion to either address this issue on remand or, because no federal claims will remain, to remand the claim to state court for resolution. See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 357 (1988); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and remand state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Noll v. Great Lakes Services, LLC · filed 2021-06-22(c)

However, a federal court, in its discretion may decline to exercise such pendant jurisdiction and remand a case to state court when all federal claims are dismissed from the case.

Section 1367(c) permits a court to remand a supplemental state-law claim after dismissal of the federal claim leaves no federal claim in the case.

Yadav v. Frost Bank · filed 2021-06-29(c)

Yadav’s brief also discusses the assault claim, but that claim was appropriately sent back to state court.

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over a state law claim after the federal claim is dismissed, and remanding an unbriefed state law counterclaim while resolving fully briefed state law claims can be within its discretion.

Slidewaters LLC v. Washington State Dep't · filed 2021-07-08(c)

The court thus declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). ... The district court did not abuse its discretion by remanding Defendants’ state law claim. ... It also did not abuse its discretion in treating the two sets of claims differently as the litigants did not treat the claims similarly. Slidewaters’ claims were fully briefed whereas Defendants’ claim was not. Resolving the fully briefed claims while remanding the untouched claim was not an abuse of discretion but rather an exercise of judicial economy.

Section 1367(c)(3) supports remand of a remaining state-law claim when all federal claims have been dismissed.

Shackelford v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC Case remanded to the 127th District Court of Harris County, Texas. · filed 2021-07-19(c)(3)

And this is because, as to § 1367(c)(3), all federal claims have been dismissed.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to remand a state law claim after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco · filed 2021-08-04(c)(3)

It was left to this Court’s discretion “to either address this issue on remand or, because no federal claims will remain, to remand the claim to state court for resolution.” ... The case is hereby remanded to San Francisco ... County Superior Court.

Section 1367 permits a court to remand remaining state-law claims after it dismisses the sole federal claim supporting supplemental jurisdiction.

Sanchez v. City of Albuquerque · filed 2021-09-29(a)

Because dismissing Sanchez’ ADA claim destroys the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over this case, the Court will remand the remaining State-law claims.

After the federal claims are dismissed and only state-law claims between nondiverse parties remain, the court no longer retains supplemental jurisdiction and must remand the case.

Bailey v. PHH Mortgage Corporation · filed 2021-09-30

Following the dismissal of Counts IV–IX, the only remaining claims left in this matter are three state law claims for breach of contract (Counts I–III), ECF No. 12 ¶¶ 80–113, and the parties are not diverse. As such, the Court no longer retains subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims and the matter must be remanded back to the Circuit Court of Maryland for Prince George’s County.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss or remand state law claims without prejudice after it dismisses all claims within its original jurisdiction before trial.

Clinard v. Washington Regional Medical Center · filed 2021-10-13(c)(3)

When a court exercises supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and grants pretrial dismissal of all claims over which it is exercising original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and remand or dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice.

Section 1367 permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and remand them after dismissing all federal claims.

Glover v. Oklahoma County of · filed 2021-11-15(c)(3)

The Court agrees that after dismissing the federal claims above, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction is in accordance with Tenth Circuit precedent. Accordingly, the Court hereby remands Plaintiff’s state law claims to the District Court of Oklahoma County.

After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, a district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and remand them to state court.

Jasper v. Gallegos · filed 2022-05-27(c)

A district court's decision whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing all claims over which it has original jurisdiction is discretionary. See § 1367(c). ... This Court is dismissing all federal claims in this case. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff Jasper’s remaining state-law claims and will remand this proceeding to state court for adjudication of those state-law claims.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims and remand them when the sole federal claim has been dismissed.

West v. Kusch · filed 2022-06-10(c)(3)

With the sole basis of federal jurisdiction excised from the case, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law dispute.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to remand removed state-law claims after all federal claims are dismissed, and the usual balance of considerations favors remand.

Boerste v. Ellis, LLC · filed 2022-06-16(c)(3)

Although a Court may retain supplemental jurisdiction over state claims after dismissing federal claims, “the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims, or remanding them to state court if the action was removed.” Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1254-55 (6th Cir. 1996) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)). “[Flederal judges must not needlessly decide” difficult questions of state law. Kowall v. Benson, 18 F.4th 542, 549 (6th Cir. 2021) (vacating and remanding). That course is appropriate here, based on the Court’s review of the pending state-law claims and motions. So absent any remaining federal claims, the Court remands the remaining claims to state court, where Boerste filed this case at the outset.

Section 1367 permits supplemental jurisdiction over a crossclaim that shares operative facts and a logical relationship with the original action.

Nautilus Insurance Company v. S&A Pizza, Inc. · filed 2022-07-29(a)

Jurisdiction over crossclaims is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which provides that federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over all claims that are so related to the original action that they form part of the same case or controversy. ... The Court finds the Crossclaim is logically related to, and arises out of, the same transaction and occurrence that is the subject matter of the Amended Complaint. Therefore, the Cochrane test has been satisfied, and the Court has supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over the Crossclaim.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a federal court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, and those state law claims may be dismissed without prejudice.

Sentementes v. Bethel · filed 2021-01-04(c)(3)

Thus, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, which must be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (if federal court dismisses all federal claims, it may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to dismiss state-law claims without prejudice when all federal claims have been dismissed and no unusual circumstances justify retaining jurisdiction.

Voss, Dante v. Marathon County · filed 2021-01-15(c)(3)

I am dismissing all of the federal claims in this case, and neither side identifies any unusual circumstances that would justify a decision to retain jurisdiction over the state-law claims, so I will dismiss those claims without prejudice to Voss refiling them in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims and to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

Colon v. Harrisonburg/Rockingham Regional Jail · filed 2021-03-30(c)(3)

To the extent Colon intended to assert any state-law claims, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction over those, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), and will dismiss them without prejudice An appropriate order will be entered.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court that has dismissed all federal claims before trial to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Sabeerin v. Albuquerque Police Department · filed 2021-04-01(c)(3)

Because the remaining claims for relief are predicated entirely on state law, dismissal of the state-law claims without prejudice is proper.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits dismissal without prejudice of remaining state law claims after all federal claims have been dismissed.

Smith-Dandridge v. Geanolous · filed 2021-06-04(c)(3)

All remaining state law claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and to dismiss the state-law claims without prejudice.

Houy v. Logsdon · filed 2021-07-23(c)

Certainly this is not one of those circumstances “where a district court should retain supplemental jurisdiction even if all of the underlying federal claims have been dismissed.” Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 625 F.3d 949, 952 (6th Cir. 2010). ... The Court grants Logsdon’s motion to dismiss the federal claim with prejudice (DN 6); declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and therefore grants the motion to dismiss those claims without prejudice, see Perry, 154 F. App’x at 478; and denies Houy’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (DN 11).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a district court to decline supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss a remaining state-law claim without prejudice after dismissing all federal claims before trial, absent circumstances favoring retention.

Dunn v. Adams, Stepner, Woltermann, & Dusing, P.L.L.C. · filed 2021-08-04(c)(3)

Therefore, the remaining state-law claim will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court that dismisses the federal claims to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims and dismiss them without prejudice.

Chandler v. City Of Cincinnati · filed 2021-08-23(c)(3)

Because the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Chandler’s state-law claims, the Court DISMISSES those claims WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to relinquish supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction; absent an exception, the usual practice is to dismiss the state claims without prejudice when the federal claims end before trial.

Chambers v. Puff · filed 2021-09-08(c)(3)

Because today’s order causes the dismissal of all claims over which the Court has original jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), the Court must address whether to retain jurisdiction over the state law claims and rule on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ... In sum, the Court finds that none of the exceptions to the “usual practice” applies in this case. As a result, the Court denies Defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice as to any state law claims and dismisses those claims with leave to refile in state court.

Section 1367(c)(3) permits a court to decline supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims after dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, and to dismiss those state law claims without prejudice.

SUN, A Series of E Squared Investment Fund, LLC v. Sundial Growers Inc. · filed 2021-09-30(c)(3)

Having dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ securities claims, and there being no other basis for federal jurisdiction over this case, the Court elects to not exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Boustany v. Xylem Inc., 235 F. Supp. 3d 486, 496-97 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). Accordingly, those claims are dismissed without prejudice.